Is it just me or doesn't it seem like teams who are down with 3:00 or under left tend to score points at a higher rate than at any other point in the game? Watching these games the last week, I fully expected UCLA, Steelers, UGa, etc to score. Pitt doing it in 34 seconds is almost unheard of though.
Analytics on GW 2-minute drives
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
It is do or die for them, so of course there is more urgency. Also, they will go for it on 4th down, when they normally would not at other times in the game.
And knowing you will go for it on 4th down can change your 3rd down call.
If analytics show that teams score more often on "desperate" drives, shouldn't one of 2 things change:
a) call the entire game like that
b) defenses shouldnt play so soft
I've said this a thousand times. The last few drives are not like the others. It's why Narduzzi electing to put the game in the hands of his defense at times has frustrated the hell out of me.
It's also why teams should go no huddle more often. Playing with urgency and rhythm works.
It's also why teams should go no huddle more often. Playing with urgency and rhythm works.
If it was that easy, don’t you think that coaches would have figured this out? You can’t play with urgency, unless it is urgent. It is not how it is called, as much as how it is played
No. If analytics show that teams are more successful on GW drives, I'd call plays like that (ie more passing) all the time. Call the whole game as you would if there were 2:00
Isn't that pretty much the Art Briles/Josh Heupel offense? They run up tempo, basic pass plays all game.
It always amused me when the Steelers would be struggling to score all day, go no-huddle for a few drives and put up some touchdowns, and then go back to huddling up.
Didn't Pitt do a hell of a lot better when they showed some urgency in the first two games this season, too? I think it puts you in a hyperfocused attack mode.
Didn't Pitt do a hell of a lot better when they showed some urgency in the first two games this season, too? I think it puts you in a hyperfocused attack mode.
Passing the ball is a more efficient way to score points for 90 percent of teams, at least at the NFL level. Unless you have the Browns O line or a QB like Lamar Jackson, very few teams are better off running than passing.
Agree, and I also think there is something to allowing your QB to get in a rhythm; allowing him to get to the LOS early and identify the defensive alignment; keeping the defense on its heels; operating out of the shotgun so there is slightly less for the QB to worry about (better view of the play development when you're not back-peddling); etc.
I mean, I get wanting to shorten the game if you're the Steelers or something and are completely undertalented many weeks. But some of these coaches are just plain dummies for how they operate their offenses.
It makes me wonder why coaches don’t tell their offenses to believe they have two minutes left. Maybe a hypnotist should be hired!
I would at least split the difference and run the 2 minute, all passing, no huddle offense at various points in the game. Say its 7-7 in the 2nd quarter, do it then. Then do it in the 3rd when you are up 24-21. Just pick random spots for it.
It seems to be more than calling pass plays. There seems to be a sense of urgency on the part of the offenses to me! Plus I have consulted my 8 ball.
You missed my point. It isn't necessarily the plays being called, it is the way the team is playing. They know this is the last chance they have to score and win/tie. That urgency does not exist until the end of the game. Look at basketball games - same thing happens, the team behind plays with more energy and urgency. They have nothing to lose, so they go all out. Teams can play that way for a few minutes, but not the whole game. Again, if they could, they would do it.
Two big differences vs the rest of the game
1. Urgency
2. automatic 4-down territory, regardless of yards to go and position on field.
#2 is very important to the analytics. It is easier to get 10 yards in 4 plays than in 3. And when you know you are going to go for it on 4th down no matter what, it changes the play calls on the earlier downs.
If punting was outlawed and teams were forced to go for it on every 4th down, the play-calling throughout the game would change - and scoring would go up.
And if you don’t get first downs or score, it puts your defense on the field constantly.
While I might love Chip Kelly and Gus Malzahn's scheme, living in that crazy up tempo has it's merits but it also has it's drawbacks. I know a ton of OL who don't mind it and others hate it.
I agree that you cant really simulate urgency but the defense is also urgent too. If the analytics say scores are more possible in this situation, it has to do with more than urgency. That leads me to play calling. I agree its easier to get 1st downs and move the football when its automatic 4 down territory but again.....analytics. If scores are more possible, why not call a drive or 2 like there's 2 minutes left and if its 4th and 3 from your own 30, just go for it? I'm talking like making this a 2 minute drive so everyone goes in knowing they are going for it. Now if its 4th and 10 from your 30, then punt, fine.
Having said this, if I were coaching, I'd almost never punt like that HS coach in Arkansas. I would do a straight-up moneyball approach and do what the analytics say.
That kind of constant hurry up offense seems a no brainer to run all the time because everyone sees the exciting highlight clips of when it is run successfully to win games.
But they are also prone to more mistakes. Going faster can lead to more false starts, fumbled snaps, incompletions from miscommunication, sacks due to missed blocking assignments or no recognition of a coming blitz, and especially to more interceptions due to hurried throws, etc.
Look at the interception Baltimore threw to seal the game for the Steelers, for example. When playing normally, Huntley likely tucks that one rather than throw, or that particular play wouldn’t even have been called, more likely.
It becomes worth the added risk for these things at the end of games when teams are desperate. But through the rest of the game, most coaches don’t want to take those risks. Thus they also don’t prepare/practice their offenses full time in the hurry up. So, they are not accustomed to run that way. Which makes the likelihood of those bad things higher when forced to run hurry up. Making the coaches more dubious of doing it. A doomed cycle.
One can probably say it comes back to overly conservative coaches and lack of faith that they can coach up their teams to run effectively “in the fast lane, hammer down, speed speed speed” manner all game. In Pitt’s lone example of a HC with that philosophy, we found it was difficult to implement, and we all know one infamous game where failure to execute it blew a big win for us.
But they are also prone to more mistakes. Going faster can lead to more false starts, fumbled snaps, incompletions from miscommunication, sacks due to missed blocking assignments or no recognition of a coming blitz, and especially to more interceptions due to hurried throws, etc.
Look at the interception Baltimore threw to seal the game for the Steelers, for example. When playing normally, Huntley likely tucks that one rather than throw, or that particular play wouldn’t even have been called, more likely.
It becomes worth the added risk for these things at the end of games when teams are desperate. But through the rest of the game, most coaches don’t want to take those risks. Thus they also don’t prepare/practice their offenses full time in the hurry up. So, they are not accustomed to run that way. Which makes the likelihood of those bad things higher when forced to run hurry up. Making the coaches more dubious of doing it. A doomed cycle.
One can probably say it comes back to overly conservative coaches and lack of faith that they can coach up their teams to run effectively “in the fast lane, hammer down, speed speed speed” manner all game. In Pitt’s lone example of a HC with that philosophy, we found it was difficult to implement, and we all know one infamous game where failure to execute it blew a big win for us.
There was a guy coaching in the WPIAL in 2021 who was very analytic. He was textbook when it came to the %'s - a straight disciple of Kevin Kelley. He never punted and always onsides kicked. I watched him lose 3 games because he didn't punt. He was fired after one season.
Kevin Kelley tried taking his strategy to the college game this past year and I believe he was fired too. He ran a few nice offensive stats but finished 2-9 and was embarrassed in the process. Kelley had very good talent while coaching at Pulaski Academy.
I dont know the WPIAL team but you have to at least an average team to do this. You cant be Butler or Uniontown. I didnt know the Arkansas guy took a college job. Looks like he was fired by Presbyterian after going 2-9. But that was Year 1 for a really bad FCS program.
FWIW, I coached my son's flag football team and we never punted all season. Now the rules were different so punting wasnt as advantageous but I'd ask the kids want they want to do. They always want to go for it. And if I lose games because of it, I couldn't possibly care less. Especially at that age, its about having fun. I remember one time, we had a 4th and whatever from our own 5 and scored a TD. The field wasnt 100 yards though. Maybe 60 or something like that.
If I have a loaded defense, I'm going to be way more aggressive on offense. Field position plays a gigantic role.
If I understand you correctly. teams try harder near the end of games, especially of they are the team that is trailing. If that is true, then isn't that something that a good coach should address with his team? Damn, I hate to agree with SMF again, but in this situation I do. I have felt the same way about this subject for years. Why can't a team play with that "sense of urgency" during other parts of the game? I know some teams will do it from time to time, I believe when it is done then, it is called "hurry up" or "no huddle".
UCF did it years ago with Josh Heupel. Tennessee did it some this year under Heupel as well. Perhaps it's just his style, but playing with a little sense urgency at other points during a game would seem to be of benefit.
Just as an added point, the best Kenny Pickett has looked this season is when he was in a hurry up situation and was allowed to make decisions on his own versus having canada chirping in his ear telling him what to do. Come to think of it. wasn't that the same as for ben roethlisberger last year? Hmmmm....
Have you ever seen teams coached by
DJ Durkin
Scott Frost
Chip Kelly
Gus Malzahn
Todd Graham
etc..
Matt Canada at NIU ran a hurry up offense. He said it allowed for great stats but unless your defensive talent is immense, the return isn't what you'd like.
I like the ability to go hurry up. I don't like to live in that world.
I like the ability to go hurry up. I don't like to live in that world.
If you're better than a team, it makes mathematical sense to run as many plays as you can. Under the law of averages, the more you run the more successful you will be.
The Steelers shortening games makes all the sense in the world, but I can't say the same about Pitt this past season. I think we had more talent/depth than anyone we faced outside of maybe 1-3 teams.
From the WMU game onward, we did not have the best passing team at all, which mostly made us the second-best offense on the field, given how important the pass game is in football today.
But part of that was (more clear in retrospect after the bowl) Narduzzi’s grave error in not going to Patti in the GT, Louisville, and/or the UNC games. Patti ain’t no superstar, don’t get me wrong, but would have almost certainly performed better than Slovis in those games…because just about any QB would have. But since Duz refused, perversely, no wonder we had to run the Ground Mush game.
That's a fair point: We weren't a great passing team. I still liked our offense better than the anemic high school teams we faced, though. I mean Louisville, Miami, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Syracuse.... those teams could barely complete a pass. Throw in Rhode Island and Western Michigan and that's already 2/3 of the season.
In a vacuum, you're probably right. I think in game situations, it's different. Steelers ran a ton of plays the other night and couldn't convert.
The hurry-up offense sort of depends on knowing what defensive look you're going to get. You're expecting a soft 2-deep because the defense is trying to get you to run more plays underneath of them. You do move the ball more easily but that's because he defense is allowing it. I don't know if you can force a defense's hand that way for the other 58 minutes.
Agreed on the opponents mostly stinking on offense after the TN game. But for a 6 game stretch mid season we could barely complete the simplest pass ourselves. It got so bad I’d actually wince when it seemed inevitable we’d need execute a passing play. It seemed such an indomitable challenge… sort of like the Steelers scoring a Td this year in anything but the last 2 minutes of a game 😄
And I'm not saying you have to do it every drive. But wouldn't it be a good change of pace to call this 2:00 no huddle, all pass drive a few times per game? I would compare it perhaps to a basketball team changing defenses. Sometimes a team will press or trap for a few possessions and catch a team off guard.
In theory yes. Certainly so in the NFL where you can practice your players seemingly around the clock 24/7 and you have many players for several years. Tougher in college to prepare and practice them with constant new players rotating in and out and only limited practice time. They probably don’t get much chance to practice hurry up offense as it is (those who don’t run it as their base offense that is); so to count on them to run it on demand multiple times a game, but to also know the standard offense game plan well, seems optimistic.
It is not that they try harder, it is that there is less to lose when you get near the end of the game and are behind - the risk becomes less than the reward. If you need to score quickly, you take chances that you would not do early in the game. Urgency is not "trying harder." It is playing with the awareness that you have only a short time to score. The throws Nick Patti made on that last drive were into coverage, particularly the one across the middle, and he would not be making those throws early in the game, when the risk was much greater than the reward. At the end of the game, he had no choice - there was no other way to get into field goal range.
Yes. Coaches hate risk. At least, coaches like ours. With hurry up, they perceive risk from the read to the snap to the blocking to the route to the throw. And these risks are there on every down. In our base offense, they see very little risk in the snap and the hand off that is happening on 1st and 2nd and ideally 3rd down.
You are missing my point. It is not speed that is the issue, it is the necessity to score in a short time. This leads to taking more risks. Patti would not make those risky throws earlier in the game, regardless of how fast the tempo was. At the end, with 35 seconds in which to score, those risky plays are necessary. You cannot duplicate that urgency early in the game.
